Return of the Taliban

One of my favorite programs “Frontline” just had a report of Taliban insurgence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is very interesting and thought provoking documentary. Although it does put a lot of blame on Pakistan but I personally think it is not balanced reporting rather biased against Pakistan.

Pakistan has been working hard to counter Al Qaida and Taliban recently. Although Americans sitting in the comfort of their homes might think there is nothing being done. The ground reality in Pakistan is very different, Pakistan has to deal with the home grown issues and then tend to the Afghan problems which the Afghan Govt has failed to deal with. When Everyone fails, they start pointing fingers at Pakistan and the ISI for the current issues in that part of the world.

But it is to be seen that the current apparatus of the Military which has been handling these issues, has been very effective against Al Qaida and Taliban. I never support Musharraf for his handling of the country but to blame Pakistan for failures from the lack of leadership in Afghanistan, the refusal to handle warlords and social problems will lead to problems in the Afghan Areas. Pakistan has nothing to do with these issues but they can get away with blaming Pakistan for it.

The tribal Areas in question always have been Semi Autonomous and they will be for the foreseeable future. Pakistan owes a great debt to the tribes in the tribal areas, as they fought for Kashmir right after independence and offered their services when our own Cheif of Army Lord MountBatten refused to do so.

It is funny to criticize Pakistan when similar issues like Northern Ireland are dealt politically rather than by force. But I think in the coming days we will see what the actual policy of the US Govt is, even thought they support Musharraf for the time being in the issues of Taliban and Tribal Areas.

Saudis Liberated

I came across an article after reading another Article about A book entitled “Banat Al-Riyadh” (The Girls of Riyadh) by Rajaa Al-Sanea. It is said to be very controversial and inciting alot of people.

Then i read the article on BBC about how Blogs and Internet has liberated the youth in Saudi Arabia from the Mullahs and Religious Autorities. It is interesting that one never sees this kind of activities in the open. Every thing about saudi arabia is very secretive and blurred. I know that the Western Media will only convey the news of the oppression of women and the youth. What i dont understand is “Is there nothing Good Happening in that country”. I am big supporter of saudi (I Think) but these kind of news make me think twice about my standing in these matter. Do the saudis really just do bad things or they do some good also. I hope the latter is true.

Well if any Saudi out there who is very neutral, drop me a line as i just want to hear the truth.

Arab news article is here

Islam Religion of Terror

An old Article but always nice to read it.

http://beliefnet.com/story/113/story_11347_1.html

In Defense of Pat Robertson
Pat Robertson and others are right about Islam being a violent religion. Look at the evidence for yourself.
Pat Robertson recently drew attacks from Muslim groups for calling Muhammad a “wild-eyed fanatic,” among other things. Robertson, as usual, states the case in excessively inflammatory terms.

But it must be said that Robertson’s basic critique of Islam as an inherently violent religion is accurate. This may not be politically correct to say, but one need only examine evidence. Islam is not only violent in its current practice but at its core–which is to say in its sacred text, the Qur’an.

Remember that Muhammad was a military leader and as such involved personally in a great deal of brutality. In the course of one battle, Muhammad’s troops raid a village and kill everyone “until there was no survivor left.” [Full citations provided below.] During another battle, Muhammad’s troops killed many men but the “prophet” is disturbed that male infants weren’t murdered too–and sends the troops back to finish the job.

The early Muslims are shown to be not only brutal but treacherous (a fact worth remembering as we consider peace treaties with Muslim nations). In one battle, the Muhammadans promised peace to a tribe nearby. Then, when the other tribe members were lulled into complacency, Muhammad massacred “all the males.” They kept the women as slaves.

The hatred for other faiths that we see in modern Islam has its roots in the Qur’an. The book tells how the Jews of the area had offered peace and Muhammad invited them to a ceremony to declare peace. Instead, Muhammad massacred the 950 of them.

Muhammad even countenances brutality against his own people. When a group in the region reputedly insulted Allah by worshiping an idol, Muhammad led the slaughter of 3,000 people in a single day. When some of his followers strayed by following non-Islamic sex practices, Allah literally directs Muhammad to slaughter another 24,000: “take all the heads of the people and hang them up before Allah against the sun.”

Under the Sharia, the Islamic law, even the slightest infractions are punished with brutal violence. Some foods were not cooked according to Halal laws? Two men were immediately executed.

The notion that Allah is a forgiving God is comical. At one point, Muhammad had led his troops to victory and then had his troops mutilate the genitalia of the opponents. He and his allies also set fire to a walled city and then waited for the victims to flee, at which point they were ambushed and slaughtered. Putting aside the historical accuracy of that account, is this really the “God of Peace” that Muslim leaders speak about?

The appalling treatment of women we see in Islamic countries today also has its roots in the Qur’an. When a mob of Muslims is attacking a man, he responds by offering his own daughter to be raped. Allah teaches the Muslims that to in order repopulate a diminished tribe, they should go to a nearby field, wait for the women to come out, and then kidnap, rape and marry them.

This is all very consistent with the basic theology of Islam spelled out in chilling clarity by Muhammed himself: “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

Finally, if there’s any doubt about the fanatical nature of the faith, it should be dispelled with this chilling passage: “Happy shall they be who take your little ones [babies] and dash them against the rock.”

If you are skeptical, I urge you to read the passages and citations yourself. It’s there in black and white.

Citations and documentation

Hmmm, I seem to have made a few errors with the attributions. The passages you’ve just read are not from the Qur’an; they’re from the Bible. Where I say Muhammad, I actually meant either Moses, Joshua, David, or another biblical figure. “I have not come to bring peace but a sword” was uttered by Jesus. When I say “Allah,” I actually meant God of the Hebrew Bible. And when I refer to Muhammed’s troops, I actually meant the Hebrews. There are obviously many other examples of brutality in the Bible (the best summary I’ve seen is Gregg Easterbrook’s “Beside Still Waters”).

Forgive my sloppiness, but it seemed useful to make a point, which is not that Christianity or Judaism are inherently violent but rather that the exercise of scanning ancient texts and pulling out passages depicting violence is of dubious value. Men and women of that earlier day were violent, and so was the God of their sacred book.

I am not saying Islam is a “religion of peace.” That actually seems as unprovable as saying it is a religion of violence. What matters fundamentally is how the religion is practiced now. Modern Christians and Jews have proven capable of rising above the violence of the Bible and so have many modern Muslims. That doesn’t mean they necessarily will in all cases, but if they choose a path of violence it is not because it is embedded in the Qur’an but rather because they, as individuals, are twisted.

Citations:

For a particularly nice summary of the Bible’s violent elements see Gregg Easterbrook’s wonderful book, “Beside Still Waters.”

Remember that Muhammad is a military leader and as such is involved personally a great deal of brutality. In the course of one battle led by Muhammad, he raids a village and kills everyone “until their was not one survivor left.” (This is actually from Numbers 21:35, the story of the taking of Bashan.) After another battle, Muhammad’s troops have slain many men but the “prophet” is disturbed that male infants weren’t killed–so he sends the troops back to finish the job. (This actually occurs in Numbers 31:14-17, when Israel takes vengeance on the Mid’ianites.)

They are shown to be not only brutal but treacherous (history worth remembering as we consider peace treaties). In one battle, the Muhammadans promised peace to a tribe nearby and then, when they were lulled into complacency, massacred “all the males.” They kept the women as slaves. (This is a story from Genesis 34:25, when Simeon and Levi take vengeance on Shechem, who had defiled their sister Dinah.)

More citations

The hatred for other faiths that we see in modern Islam has its roots in the Qur’an. At one point, the Jews of the area had offered peace and Muhammad invited them to a ceremony to declare peace. Instead, Muhammad massacred the 950 of them. (As Elijah does, in I Kings 18:40, to the followers of the false God Ba’al.)

But it goes beyond that; Muhammad even countenances brutality ag
ainst his own. When one group in the region reputedly insulted Allah by worshiping an idol, Muhammad led the slaughter of 3,000 people in a single day. Another group of dissenters prompted a bloody massacre led by Muhammed that killed 14,700 people, according to the Qur’an. (When Korah leads a rebellion against Moses and Aaron, a plague sent by God kills 14,700, Numbers 16:49). Later, when some of his followers strayed by following non-Islamic sex practices, Allah literally directs Muhammad to slaughter another 24,000: “take all the heads of the people and hang them up before Allah against the sun.” (This slaughter occured in Numbers 25:9, when some Isarelites were found to have joined the Moabites in improper sex.)

Under the Sharia, the Islamic law, even the slightest infractions are punished with brutal violence. In one case, some foods were not cooked according to Halal laws, and the two men were immediately executed. (The Lord smites Nadab and Abi’hu, the sons of Aaron, in Leviticus 10:2, for offering an unholy sacrifice.)

The notion that Allah is a forgiving God is comical. At one point, some people had the temerity to question one of the dietary laws and Allah supposedly responded by sending poisonous snakes to kill people. At another point, Muhammed had led his troops to victory but then proceeded to murder and then mutilate the genitalia of the opponents. In one case, they set fire to a walled city and then wait of the fleeing victims and slaughter them as they try to escape. (As Joshua and the people of Israel do to the city of Ai in Joshua 8:22.)

The appalling treatment of women in Islamic countries today has its roots in the Qur’an. In one case, a mob of Muslims is attacking a man and he responds by offering his own daughter to be raped. (As in Judges 19:24.) In some cases, it specifies that women who are raped should be executed. (One of these cases appear in Deuteronomy 22:23-27.) In another case, Allah literally instructs the Muslims that to repopulate a diminished tribe they should go to a nearby field, wait for the women to come out, kidnap, rape and marry them. (In Judges 21:20-24, Benjamite soldiers are told to repopulate their tribe by kidnapping the women of Shiloh.)

This is all very consistent and the theology that undergirds this is spelled out in chilling clarity, directly from Muhammad himself: “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (This quote is actually attributed to Jesus in the New Testament, Matthew 10:34.)

Finally, if there’s any doubt about the fanatical nature of the faith, it should be dispelled with this chilling passage: “Happy shall they be who take your little ones [babies] and dash them against the rock.” (This quote is actually from the Psalms, 137:9, when the exiled Israelites dream of revenge against Babylon.)

Muhammad's Sword

Muhammad’s Sword
23-09-2006

Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.

Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 – exactly 1700 years ago – encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.

The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, “walked to Canossa”, standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope’s castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.

But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week’s speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush’s crusade against “Islamofascism”, in the context of the “Clash of Civilizations”.

IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God’s actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.

As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this “war of civilizations”.
In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?

To support his case, the Pope quoted – of all people – a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had – or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) – with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:
“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”.
These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?

WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.
At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel’s death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.

During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.

In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim “Axis of Evil”. Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.

IS THERE any truth in Manuel’s argument?
The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur’an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: “There must be no coercion in matters of faith”.
How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur’an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes – Christian, Jewish and others – in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.

Jesus said: “You will recognize them by their fruits.” The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to “spread the faith by the sword”?
Well, they just did not.

For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.
True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.

In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith – and they were the forefathers of most of today’s Palestinians.

THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the “spreading of the faith by the sword”?

What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi (“Spanish”) Je
ws settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the “peoples of the book”. In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service – a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion – because it entailed the loss of taxes.

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times “by the sword” to get them to abandon their faith.
THE STORY about “spreading the faith by the sword” is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims – the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?
There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of “Islamofascism” and the “Global War on Terrorism” – when “terrorism” has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush’s handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world’s oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers’ expedition becomes a Crusade.

The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1159094813

Another Interesting Take from a Sister

Interesting Collection from Al Muhajabah’s blogs

Here is some good commentary on the issue. First are some columns by non-Muslim journalists and commentators:

Double Jack’s Standards, by Mike Marqusee
Jack Straw’s veil comments threaten to inflame racism, by Socialist Worker
What Not to Wear, by Vikram Dodd
It’s a New and Dangerous Game, by Ian Bell

Here are some comments from British Muslim bloggers:

Open Season on Muslims, by Indigo Jo
Muslims as Political Footballs, by Thabet
The Polite Guide to Demonizing Muslims, by Julaybib
Blaming the Veil is Wrong, by Rajnaara Akhtar
Incitement to Hatred, by Soumaya Ghannoushi

Some people noted the following news story: Veil Snatched from Muslim Woman. Hopefully this is completely unrelated.

P.S. There is a difference of opinion among Muslims about whether the niqab is obligatory or voluntary (I believe the latter). Even those who consider it to be obligatory allow women to remove their niqabs for the purpose of verifying their identity (1, 2). This includes business dealings, giving testimony, and appearing in court. It’s not clear whether this would cover professional dealings with an MP and in any case, Straw didn’t mention verifying identity. I’ve also written about legal issues relating to face veils and about understanding the face veil.

Trouble in Balouchistan

Reading about the Death of Nawab Akbar Bugti is really sad; he is most probably a shaheed. But will this solve the problems in Baluchistan or escalate them more now.

The world is not as black and white as the army would see it. Balouch have been taken advantage of for the last 50 years and they need their fair share of their wealth. These problems can never be solved with killings or Military actions but they are to be solved with negotiations and political solutions. I never doubt the sincerity of the Balouch Nationals or the military. They both want the problems solved but the way of achieving them is not the proper way.

First of all the people of the land should get their share, there is no doubt about it. We cannot abuse the actual inhabitants of the land. We do belong to the union and that union is good as long as all the members of the union are equal. Punjab is no more superior or any other province than any other province superior over Punjab. All are equal and deserve to gain from their lands.

Federal government and the military have been dealing with this situation in the wrong manner. They should just do the following and I think it would make things easier.

The share of the profits from Sui and all projects originating from Baluchistan should be given to Balouchs. This share should not discriminate among the Sardars or the people.

Schools, Hospitals, Universities and all the basic requirements of a decent life should be provided so these people can live with dignity.

The employment preferences and higher level positions are national projects operating in Baluchistan should be given to Balouchs.

Army should be removed from cities and should be less involved in these projects.

Remember to gain respect one has to give respect and that is what lacks in our policies towards our own people. No wonder they don’t want to stay with the union.

I guess these actions if taken should be able to reduce the friction between the parties.

Question for Pakistanis

Although i should make it clear that i dont support Mr. Sharif or Mohtarma or Musharraf but i just thought would ask this question to my fellow pakistanis in general.

Arent we tired of all the three above. Whoever supports mr Sharif, i can say he did some good but not all. I was in pakistan as a student and i support his actions for the Nuclear Testing, Motorway projects and stuff but do we forget what happened with Supereme Court Judges, Cheif of Election Comissioner, Importing luxary cars by cancelling duty for a day and then enforcing the duty back on, Qarz utaroo Mulk Sunwaroo money which pakistanis collected at his call, his political partners who were corrupt.

I can rant same kinda info about PPP or MQM or MMA or any political party. I just get amazed at people who want Bibi or sharif’s back in power, how do we forget so fast about what happened and the corruption these person’s government had. I see all those die hard party workers who want to die to their leader but they seem to forget that during their time also wrong was done.

I am not trying to create a provocation just an intellectual arguement about this issue. Help me understand that why Mr. Sharif/Bibi/Any one current in the political spectrum is good.

The last good govt in my lifetime was the interim govt under Mairaj Khalid which actually did work for pakistan although for a very short time.

So rather than trying to prove me wrong or anything please help me understand why anyone in the political spectrum, either they be Choudhry’s, Wadeeray, Generals, Sardars or any Fuedal be accepted as our leaders of pakistan when they are so distant from the actual pakistani person.

No offence meant, just want intellectual conversation.

The traitor Leaves

Flight Lieutenant M Matiur Rehman who waws the cause of the martyrdom of Rashid Minhas is finally going to his land. I am glad he is being moved to Bangladesh as there is no space for a traitor on pakistani land.

I dont have mix feelings about this person, he was a traitor to pakistan at the time of near war. He tried to do something which any pakistani would never do at any time. What happened to him was something that he deserved and am glad it happened to him. He also managed to introduce us to a true pakistani Hero, Rashid Minhas.

for bangalis he is a hero but for me he is a traitor who died while trying to betray his nation, he would have succeeded but Allah had another planfor him and he died like a disgraced traitor and for ever came to be known as a traitor in pakistani history..

It is good he will be moved to bangladesh and be buried. I just pray that he goes to hell for betraying muslims and pakistani, Rot in Hell Traitor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4928268.stm

اردو ميں بلاگ

سوچا کھ آج ميں اردو ميں بلاگ لکھوں۔ ماکروسوفٹ کا يہ بہت فايدہ ھے کھ اردو ميں لکھنے کا موقع مل گيا۔ يہ ميں مانتا ھوں کہ اردو ميں لکھنا تھوڑا مشکل ہے۔ مگر يہ ايک اچھا طريقہ ہے سيکھنےکا۔ انشااللہ مستقبل ميں ميں اور زيادہ اردو بلاگنگ کروں گا۔